Get current pricing

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by emphasizing 'live' and 'currently enabled,' signaling that the returned pricing and feature flags are dynamic rather than static. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and then itemizes the return contents. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless read-only pricing tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what the tool returns, that it is live rather than cached, and the dynamic availability flags. No missing prerequisites or usage conditions are apparent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Schema coverage is effectively 100% because there are no properties to document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a clear resource ('live credit costs') with an explicit list of included values. It clearly conveys what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling estimate_cost, which could plausibly overlap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use get_pricing versus alternatives like estimate_cost or get_account. The intended context is implied by the tool name and contents, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.